Delhi Court March 2015 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Vs. Emporium Incharge Bharat Leather Corporation Ltd ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: March 04, 2015 + LPA9552013 SHRI RAJESH KUMAR Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.M.K.Gautam, Advocate with Mr.M.K.Sarna, Advocate versus EMPORIUM INCHARGE BHARAT LEATHER CORPORATION LTD Represented by: None ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) 1. The appellant was a Sales Assistant with the respondent and was also the Vice-President of the union of the employees of the respondent.2. It was alleged by the management of the respondent that on April 23, 1985 the office bearers of the union, which included the appellant, entered the office of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director as 11.40 A.M. They used abusive, derogatory and unparliamentarily against the Chairman-cumManaging Director and instigated the employees to create a ruckus, requiring the police to be summoned so that the situation could be brought under control.3. Initially, a Depa...
Tejpal Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: February 25, 2015 Judgment Delivered on: March 04, 2015 % + W.P.(C) 8425/2014 TEJPAL SINGH Represented by: ..... Petitioner Mr.Jagjit Singh and Ms.Nisha, Advocates versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI with Mr.Apurva Varma and Mr.Rishi Kapoor, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRATIBHA RANI, J.1. For almost about a quarter of century the petitioner has been litigating to challenge the penalty of dismissal from service awarded by the Disciplinary Authority on October 19, 1990. For petitioner it appears to be cause which he is pursuing at his convenience by keeping the issue of his dismissal alive knowing fully well that during inquiry proceedings he pleaded guilty to the article of charge before the Inquiry Officer and did not retract even after the time was given to him to give a second thought before making a ple...
Alok Kumar Vs. Pawan Hans Ltd. and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
$~25 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : March 04, 2015 + LPA1292015 ALOK KUMAR Represented by: ..... Appellant Mr.Alok Kumar, Advocate with Ms.Manisha Agrawal Narain and Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocates versus PAWAN HANS LTD & ANR ..... Respondents Represented by: Mr.S.K.Taneja, Sr.Advocate instructed by Mr.Puneet Taneja and Ms.Kopal Srivastava, Advocates for R-1 Mr.Vikram Jetly, CGSC for R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral) CM Nos.4072-74/2015 Allowed. LPA No.129/2015 1. The appellant, or may be the counsel for the appellant who drafted the writ petition is responsible for the situation in which the appellant finds himself today, but justice demands that the impugned order be set aside and matter remanded to the learned Single Judge with liberty granted to the appellant to formally amend the writ petition and implead the Indian Air Force as a respondent and make an alternative prayer.2. The...
Haryana Packaids Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on:10. 12.2014 Judgment delivered on:04. 03.2015 % + OMP Nos. 692/2011 & 235/2008 HARYANA PACKAIDS PVT. LTD. ..... Petitioner Versus INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Bahl & Ms Usha Mann, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. M.M. Kalra & Mr Kunal Kalra, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER OMP6922011 & IA No.14514/2011 (Condonation of delay in re-filing petition) IA No.15690/2010 (for extension of time by arbitrator) in OMP No.235/2008 1. This is a petition, essentially, filed under Section 14(1)(a) and 14(2) read with Section 11(6) and 11(8)(b) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the 1996 Act). 1.1 In addition to the above, provisions of Section 18(4) of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (in short the 2006 Act), have also been invoked. 1.2 In effect, the petitioner seeks to repla...
Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
$~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:04. h March, 2015 + CRL .M.C.725/2015 & Crl. MA27652015 SHIV KUMAR YADAV Through: ..... Petitioner Mr D.K. Mishra, Advocate versus STATE Through: ..... Respondent Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, ASC for State along with Insp. Anil Dureja, Insp. Devender Rathi, SI Sandeep and SI Renu, PS Sarai Rohilla, Delhi. % CORAM: HONBLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA JUDGMENT : SUNITA GUPTA, J.1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 18th February, 2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.02/2015 vide FIR No.1291/2014 u/s 376/323/506 IPC registered with Police Station Sarai Rohilla vide which the prayer of the petitioner for recalling the prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination was declined.2. FIR in the instant case was registered on the basis of statement made by prosecutrix X wherein s...
Smt Narinder Kaur Oberoi and Ors. Vs. State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY23 2015 DECIDED ON : MARCH04 2015 + CRL.REV.P. 289/2014 & CRL.M.A.No.7916/2014 SMT NARINDER KAUR OBEROI & ORS. Through : ..... Petitioners Mr.Sanjeev Anand, Advocate with Mr.Yakesh Anand, Mr.Arush Khanna, Mr.Murari Kumar & Ms.S.Anand, Advocates. VERSUS STATE & ANR. Through : ..... Respondents Mr.Navin K.Jha, APP. Mr.Mohit Mathur, Advocate with Mr.Gurbaksh Singh, Advocate for R2. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners to impugn the legality and correctness of an order dated 11.04.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge by which charge under Sections 323/325/341/308/34 IPC was ordered to be framed against them. The petition is contested by respondent No.2.2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the filing including the authorities relied upon by them.3. Admitted position is that both the parties are closely related ...
Golam Biswas Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.1529/2014 Reserved on:19. h February, 2015 Date of Decision:4. h March, 2015 % GOLAM BISWAS ....Petitioner Through Mr. Pradeep Jain, Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Mr. Rajib Mukherjee, Mr. A. Samad, Mr. Shubhankar Jha, Mr. Ashish Batra, Mr. Kumar Vikram and Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocates. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ..Respondents Through Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with Mr. Vidur Mohan and Mr. Ajay Kalra, Advocates for UOI. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR SANJIV KHANNA, J.Golam Biswas has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the detention order dated 27th May, 2014 passed under Section 3(1) and order dated 13 th June, 2014 passed under Section 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as COFEPOSA Act, for short). The petitioner was ...
Prem Chand Vs. Rakesh Garg
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + RC.REV. 230/2014 & CM111162014 (STAY) Reserved on:18. h February, 2015 Decided on:4. h March, 2015 % PREM CHAND Through ..... Petitioner Mr. Rajeev Verma with Mr. Naveen Chandra, Advs. versus RAKESH GARG Through ..... Respondent Mr. Ravish Kumar Goyal and Mr. Naresh Kumar, Advs. Coram: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA MUKTA GUPTA, J.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 7th February, 2014 whereby the eviction petition filed by the respondent under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (in short the DRC Act) was allowed the petitioner prefers the present petition.2. In the eviction petition, the respondent stated that he was the owner/landlord of property bearing No.500/3 (in short the suit property) having purchased it from its original owner i.e. Amit Kumar vide registered sale deed dated 13th March, 2002. The petitioner was a tenant in respect of one shop on the ground floor of the said property (in short the tenanted premises). The...
Sudarshan Singh Sekhawat Vs. State and Ors.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
$~65 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 04, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 883/2015 & Crl.M.A. 3308/2015 SUDARSHAN SINGH SHEKHAWAT ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shohit Chaudhary, Advocate versus STATE & ORS Through: .....Respondents Mr.Praveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentState with ASI Om Prakash Mr. Pamod Dubey, Advocate with respondents No.2 and 3 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % Quashing of FIR No.263/2014, under Sections 279/427 of IPC registered at police station Hauz Khas, Delhi is sought on the basis of Mediated Settlement of 12th February, 2015 (Annexure-3) and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR now stands cleared between the parties. Notice. Mr. Praveen Bhati, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State accepts notice and Mr. Pramod Dubey, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 to 3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondentSt...
Gaurav Jain Vs. The State and Anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-04-2015
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision: March 04, 2015 + CRL.M.C. 592/2014 & Crl. M.A.No.1953/2014 GAURAV JAIN Through: ..... Petitioner Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate versus THE STATE & ANR. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Karan Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State with ASI Rajneesh Mr. S.K. Jha, Advocate with respondent No.2 in person CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR JUDGMENT (ORAL) % In this petition, quashing of FIR No.712/2006, under Sections 63/65/68(a) of the Copy Right Act r/w Section 7 of the Cinematography Act, registered at police station Dabri, Delhi on the basis of No objection Certificate of respondent No.2. Mr. Karan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that respondent No.2 is the complainant/first-informant of the FIR in question and he is present in the Court and he has been identified to be so by ASI Rajneesh on the basis of identify proof furnished by him. Crl.M.C.No.592/2014 Page 1 Learned counsel for petiti...
- ‹ Prev
- 42
- 43
- 44
- 45
- 46
- 48
- 49
- 50
- 51
- 52
- Next ›
- Last »